old tanks still in service

d_taddei2

Banned Member
hi all, i have been reading lately about what equipment is still in service, and was quite surprised that the T-34 tank was still in service, mostly with African nations, and some nations keeping them in reserve. Having protection from only small arms/sniper fire and shrapnel, and firepower only capable of taking on soft skinned/lightly armoured vehicles and bunkers. Also to note the slow speed, the only real benefits would be its basic maintenance, reliability, and basic training needs.

But can this tank be of any use in any form of warfare today???
would also be good to hear if anyone knows of any other old vehicles (pre1950's) still in use today and there usefulness.
 

nickfall

New Member
If the t/34 is the only tank your nation can afford you make the most of it. African warfare in particular is not modern warfare it's medieval. If you need to shell a rebel village it still has a gun capable of doing the job. Easy to maintain and simple to operate it will keep going on and on. A tracked vehicle is intimidating no matter how old. Against a modern army it would be useless, against a poorly equipped peasant army it would still do the job, even as just a mobile machine gun platform.
The machete is still an effective weapon in African conflicts.
 

Pendekar

New Member
Cambodia bought 50 brand new T-55 from Ukraine in 2010. I don't know that any ex-soviet countries still produce the tank. Maybe it's from the soviet era reserve stock.
 

Krijger

New Member
The T-34’s armour was good enough to protect it from a lot more than just “small arms/sniper fire and shrapnel” during World War 2; indeed, the later T-34/85 was considered to be one of the better tanks of the war.
It all boils down to budget and requirement; if you don’t have much money to spend and aren’t expecting to face the latest technology, then you don’t need the latest technology, either.

The Centurion tank is still in use in some countries; Israel still uses the chassis for specialist vehicles, while South Africa uses a modified version called “Olifant”.
The M-41 tank is still used by Brazil and Uruguay, although Brazil is going to “donate” 20 M-41s to Uruguay. I think those 20 represent the last of Brazil’s stock; the transfer will increase Uruguay’s M-41 force to 42.
 

d_taddei2

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
thanks

hi and thanks for the input, id imagine the new t-55 tanks are either reserve stock or refurbished upgraded stock. its true to say that if your not fighting a modern force the t-34 is more than capable, i believe most t-34 in service are used as a second tank or as an infantry support vehicle, i am sure any infantryman on the ground would be glad to to have one supporting him. I agree the t-34's armour could handle more than small arms and shrapnel, but i would imagine most modern anti tank weapons would penetrate them with ease, however some of the older anti tank weapons would struggle and would probably require a series of shots or hitting in the weak spots.

I think its a testament to old equipment, that they still have a use in todays warfare if used correctly and to its best effect in the right situation. another vehicle to note is the BTR 40 and BTR 152 ( i know there not a tank) which were built in the 1950's and still in use mainly as recon and the BTR 152 being used in various roles i.e apc, ambulance, command, and anti air to name a few,.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
The Royal Thai Army [RTA] still uses the M-47. Their M-47s [not pre-1950's I know] were meant to be replaced by T-84 Oplots but I'm sure if a deal was actually signed. In the mid-1990's, Raids magazine had photos of T-43/85s that were still operated by the Romanian army, for the training role.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Pre 50's tanks and armored vehicles that're still operationals, is rare. However if definition included to 50's era than it's still significant number of them in service. Large part of Indonesian Tanks and armored vehicle still 50's era, from AMX 13, PT 76, BTR 50, Alvis Saracen and Saladin. Many operators of 50's era already upgrade them with newer power packs and electronics or adding composite armor in them.
 

Cadredave

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I agree the t-34's armour could handle more than small arms and shrapnel, but i would imagine most modern anti tank weapons would penetrate them with ease,
And which class of modern system are you refering to LAW, SRAAW, MRAAW, RCL, that would struggle against an T34/85, all of these were designed to combat post 1960/70 tanks, a T34 would not stand up to a RPG7 or M72A6 they would slice thru it like a hot knife thru butter.

however some of the older anti tank weapons would struggle and would probably require a series of shots or hitting in the weak spots.
If your talking about M1A1 Bazooka or PIAT then you are correct if your implying that an M72 type would need more than one shot without factoring in its characteristics, windage, range etc then thats incorrect. Any WW2 AFV used in Africa against boy soldiers or LRA is going to induce panic, any other well equipped Army would have no fears coming up against an T34/85 Tank.
 

Damian90

New Member
@Krijger

I would not be so keen to call T-34 series as good tanks, even soviets, although silently admitted it was failed design. I know that myth of T-34 is still in very good shape, especially in west, where most sources from east are not well avaiable. But it is worth to find two good sources.

First is book T-34 Mythical Weapon written by Robert Michulec, a Polish historian who spend a lot of time to collect all possible sources and to show truth about T-34, there are two volumes of his book, very detailed work with plenty of sources from factories that were manufacturing these tanks. Book is also in English.

Second book, or rather memoirs, are titled Commanding The Red Army's Sherman Tanks - The World War II Memoirs Of Hero Of The Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza, Dmitriy Loza served on many tanks besides M4's sent to Soviet Union through Lend Lease program, among them also T-34, his comparrision between two are interesting, and conclusion is that better overall tank was M4... surprising eh? ;) Of course memoirs are also in English.

Also worth to check is Aberdeen Proving Grounds report from test of both T-34 and KV-1, interesting lecture, although I do not have copy my collection.

Just my two cents for anyone interested in more detailed research, and who don't know these sources.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
You raise an interesting point. The fact remains that T-34 did what it was built to do and without the T-34 it is doubtful that the Soviets could have accomplished what the did, irrespective of their numerical superiority, their industrial capacity and the tremendous help they received from the Western Allies. The main problem with the T-34, as you know, apart from the inability of its armour to withstand hits from high velocity German guns and a lack of a radios, was its one man turret. German veterans mantain that the one main reason they were able to win many tactical advantages, even with heavily outnumbered ,was the fact that the commander of the T-34 had to command the tank, maintain SA and operate the main gun. Off course all that was to change when the T-34/85 appeared.

The comment about the M4 is interesting, I always assumed that Soviet tankers preferred the their T-34s. I know most had nothing good to say about other Allied tanks like the Churchill and Grant, which off course were inferior to the Sherman.
 

Damian90

New Member
I think the main problem with T-34 history is the fact, that during Soviet times, any official criticism of Soviet made weapons and weapon systems, was prohibited.

(I'am from Poland, and although I born after SU collapse, I know from stories, and other sources how life behind Iron Curtain looked back then)

But let's take a look at some facts. Many Guard Units, considered as Elite in the Red Army, was not using T-34's but M4's.

Even from technical point of view M4 was more advanced, more realiable tank than T-34. I strongly recommend here to read Aberdeen Procing Grounds tests report, where engine, transmission and filtres design and reliability was called a "sabotage", and that was a real issue with T-34's, If I remember correct, engine service life at some point was calculated to be only 100 motohours.

And there were many more problems, in Dmitriy Loza memoirs, he says, that when M4 was hit, it was preatty safe tank, You could get out and hid under a tank, if there was such nececity on the battlefield, and even when ammunition get cook off, You could only hear some sort of "poof", while in case of T-34, You should run like hell as far as possible from tank, because when ammunition started to cook off, the whole thing just blow off in to pieces.

When I read such sources, confronted them with popular opinions about T-34, I get a conclusion that T-34 status is in fact based on a myth, on Soviet propaganda, not on reality.

I think that even designers involved in to T-34 project were fully aware of problems with it's design.

We should remember that T-34 designer was Koshkin, but the most famous, and most briliant soviet tank designer was Morozov, at that time younger engineer and protege of Koshkin. IMHO Morozov who took a lead of T-34 designing team after Koshkin death (and here is really interesting theory, there is official version how Koshkin died, and there is a theory that Koshkin was murdered on Stalins order, after one of T-34 presentation where tanks both gearboxes burned out when tank was driven by one of aparatchiks to show how "easy" it is in driving, of course it is non official) had not very good opinion about it's design (Morozov itself was in tank designing ahead of it's times), this iw hy T-34 in it's original form was not even meant to be manufactured in such numbers as it was, instead designing team was working on T-34M that was deeply redesigned. However the war demanded a simple tank that could have been manufactured in incredible numbers... however M4 was manufactured during war in much greater numbers, while it had been vehicle much more reliable, manufactuer as high quality product, and what is important, it was somehwat ahead of it's times, from simple for our standards but then advanced gun stabilization system, to safe ammunition storage in later M4 variants... something that today, in reality only M1 Abrams have (other tanks have less safe ammunition storage systems... or none of such).

So the very important question is that T-34, deserved to be called best medium tank of WWII... and there are many more question about WWII military technology, like if the German Tanks deserved to be called best AFV's of WWII... I know that for some people it might be a historic revisionism, but if such questions are not justified after more detailed and closer look at many sources?
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Seeking opinions from Blackhats here - Would it have been worthwhile keeping the Leopard AS1's as a second line asset after we purchased the Abrams? Is there any role in which they could still have been useful? Or were they shagged and becoming rapidly obsolete? How does the maintenance costs etc stack up with the M1's?

How would they have fared for example in GW1 against the T72's of the Iraqi's?
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Giving them an armour upgrade comparable to the MEXAS armour the Canadians used on their Leopard 1C2. IIRC the Australian Leos had an AC installed in one of their upgrades so they wouldn't suffer from the same problems like the Canadians in Afghanistan. With a wide variety of different types of ammunition as well as engineer equipment available they could be usefull in a low to medium threat environment. The Danes used them with success on the Balkans as well as the Canadians in A-stan. But both nations also realized the limitations of the Leopards and upgraded their forces with modern Leo 2 versions.

In a Gulf War scenario the Leopard 1 could play a role. Iraq fielded T-72M1s (or were it just Ms?) as their most modern tank IIRC. Modern 105mm ammunition can cope with it and every other armor Iraq fielded. Due to better training and an adequate fire control system the Leopard 1s should come up on top in encounters with enemy armour. The problem is that they at the max could shrug of a hit of a T-55 or the usual RPG-7. Getting hit by any 125mm APFSDS or even HEAT as well as ATGMs like Milan would most likely put the crew into a world of hurt instead of shrugging it of and keep on fighting like the Abrams and Challis did.

Countries which face a potential conflict with a numerable enemy ground force could very well put the Leos into tank hunting companies accompanying MechInfBns or give them to the reserve. A well used Leopard is still thread to every tank out there. It made sense for NATO forces during the cold war. Today not so much...

But as Australia doesn't face such a threat so the money used for upgrades, ammunition, training and keeping the Leos running is much better used for the Abrams force.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
But as Australia doesn't face such a threat so the money used for upgrades, ammunition, training and keeping the Leos running is much better used for the Abrams force.
Starting to get off-topic but I'm very curious as to what direction the South African army will take over the next few years, when a decision to replace the Olifants will have to be decided on. As there is little likehood of the country being involved in a land war with any of its immediate neighbours and none of its neighbours operate 'modern' MBTs [the closest probably being Egypt which is a few thousand kilometres away], will the army be able to secure funding for a new MBT or does it even see the need for a new MBT?

I remember a discussion I had with an Australian Blackhat in the late 1990's, who was on an attachment with the Malaysian army to help them develop a new armoured training curriculum. He said the biggest fear he and his fellow officers had was that the Leopard 1s would be replaced with a wheeled platform or a light tank.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Well, Rheinmetall has a folt in the door as they took over Denel Munition and are also active in country with their Rheinmetall-MAN cooperation.

So getting surplus Leopard IIA4s is always an option although european reserve stocks are shrinking. Lightly refurbished Leo IIs give alot of bang for the buck with lots of potential for future upgrades (like for example in Singapores case).

Their experience with the Angolans and Cubans should have teached them that an iron fist is good to have and may come in handy in several situations. Quality rather than quantity should be their credo as they won't slug it out with big mech forces. But the ability to augment their other forces with some MBT squadrons should be worth the money.

Canada should be a glaring example for every nation where the penny pinchers and the light/joint/depoyability/whatever-mafia tries to replace MBTs with light wheeled platforms. They changed their mind rather rapidly when they got heavily engaged in A-stan.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Giving them an armour upgrade comparable to the MEXAS armour the Canadians used on their Leopard 1C2. IIRC the Australian Leos had an AC installed in one of their upgrades so they wouldn't suffer from the same problems like the Canadians in Afghanistan. With a wide variety of different types of ammunition as well as engineer equipment available they could be usefull in a low to medium threat environment. The Danes used them with success on the Balkans as well as the Canadians in A-stan. But both nations also realized the limitations of the Leopards and upgraded their forces with modern Leo 2 versions.
Off topic again, seems more talking now on upgrading relative 'older' tanks. Rather than maintaining Leo1, how about the thinking on up scaling IFV (Marder, CV-90) with 105 gun or even 120.

Rheinmetall Defence Displays Two Marder Upgrades | Defense Update Portal

Rheinmettal seems claim the protection level already reach for ' ballistic STANAG Level 4+, and mine protection comparable to Level 3a/3b+'. For the mobile gun platform, further upgrade bring it to 43 tons weight. I'm definitely not an expert on that, however seems it's already good enough for facing older Tanks/MBT asset of T-55/62 or RPG-7 on many potential conflict facing current operational environment.

I've put on Indonesian Army thread, the possibility for so called 'medium tank' as secondary Tank assets (whether it's based on Korean K-21 or German Marder) as support for MBT but also the main Tank force (which with 30-40 tons weight, it's more politically acceptable by the 'old guard' who are mostly still skeptical for 60+ ton MBT).

What I'm getting at, for the professionals tankers in here, Is it using this IFV upgrade/up scaling will be better on current operational situation that upgrading older MBT platform (like Leo 1, Merkava mk1, T-72 etc) ?
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Seeking opinions from Blackhats here - Would it have been worthwhile keeping the Leopard AS1's as a second line asset after we purchased the Abrams? Is there any role in which they could still have been useful? Or were they shagged and becoming rapidly obsolete? How does the maintenance costs etc stack up with the M1's?
I doubt the Leopard 1 would be worthwhile as a gun tank with M1A1s on hand. Even in a reserve unit the cost of maintaining two sets of training and supply systems wouldn’t be worth it compared to training the reserves on M1s and letting them have a handful of tanks for continuation training and using the school of armour vehicles for annual exercises (as was done with the Centurions). In time of emergency additional American M1s could be acquired to bring the reserve armoured regiment up to full strength.

The Leopard 1 hulls of course are a different matter. It was a great waste to dispose of them when they could have formed the basis of equipping our mechanised combat engineers with actual vehicles. In particular an armoured mine clearer (AMC) capability. Which at the simplest could just be a Leopard 1 with the turret removed and pushing a mine plough or roller. 24 of such would bring 1 CER up to strength and another 12 the new Beersheba brigades. The army also needs 4-6 beach recovery vehicles (BRV) otherwise our amphibious capability is just a show pony. The Leopard 1 hull is used as the baseline for the Hippo BRV used by the British and Dutch marines so would be ideal in this role. The Leopard 1 ARV(M) and AVLB would still be useful on strength with the mechanised combat engineer squadrons.

Of course all of these capabilities could be provided by M1 Abrams based vehicles which would be more capable and enable a single sustainment system but of course with much higher non-recurring costs for acquisition.

How would they have fared for example in GW1 against the T72's of the Iraqi's?
Since most of the Iraqi T-72s were engaged with their crews in bunkers not their vehicles it would have been much the same result as when the M1s destroyed them. But tank vs tank the Leopard 1 would not have many of the advantages of the M1. It would have less combat range against the T-72’s frontal armour, much poorer night fighting capability (active IR) and not have frontal armour resistant to T-72 fires at combat ranges. However the huge advantage in crew and unit competency combined with the overall combined arms attack would result in total destruction of any Iraqi tank unit engaged.

PS If Australia had deployed a mech bde to ODS then the USA would have probably re-equipped 1 Armd Regt with M1A1s or IPM1s (depending on which corps the Australian brigade was attached to). They had deployed more than enough tanks into theatre and made sure all of VII Corps units were reequipped with M1A1-HAs before ODS.
 
Last edited:

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Starting to get off-topic but I'm very curious as to what direction the South African army will take over the next few years, when a decision to replace the Olifants will have to be decided on. As there is little likehood of the country being involved in a land war with any of its immediate neighbours and none of its neighbours operate 'modern' MBTs [the closest probably being Egypt which is a few thousand kilometres away], will the army be able to secure funding for a new MBT or does it even see the need for a new MBT?
The final decision on a South African MBT replacement will probably be more associated with tender kickbacks and the like. While unfortunate for South African civil society it will probably result in the South African Army being supplied with a high end MBT from Europe. But not any time soon. As pointed out by Waylander tanks are more than just useful as a counter tank weapon but also for providing a huge advantage to your force in attacking dug in infantry. This is the reason the Australian Army keeps tanks in the order of battle.

I remember a discussion I had with an Australian Blackhat in the late 1990's, who was on an attachment with the Malaysian army to help them develop a new armoured training curriculum. He said the biggest fear he and his fellow officers had was that the Leopard 1s would be replaced with a wheeled platform or a light tank.
It was the politically mandated decision at the time (1990s) to acquire a light weight ~15 tonne wheeled tank destroyer. While Army simulation demonstrated that such a system would be highly lethal in open terrain peer force on force type battles it would be disastrous to use in support of infantry in complex battles like urban and jungle terrain.

Interesting in the context of the South African Army during the late 70s, early 80s they developed a >40 tonne wheeled tank that combined many of the advantages of wheels (high operational speed) with the heavy frontal armour of a tank. They went ahead with upgrading the Centurions for cost reasons and because they had a lighter wheeled AFV to provide the rapid strike capability (Rooikat) so kept the tracked tank in the golf bag for just in case. But considering the difficulty they had in moving and sustaining the tracked tanks in action in Angola the heavy wheeled tank would have made a major difference for them if they had acquired it.
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
PS If Australia had deployed a mech bde to ODS then the USA would have probably re-equipped 1 Armd Regt with M1A1s or IPM1s (depending on which corps the Australian brigade was attached to). They had deployed more than enough tanks into theatre and made sure all of VII Corps units were reequipped with M1A1-HAs before ODS.
A colleague who was an ex RAEME WO told me that when he was in 1 Armd during Desert Shield they were told to prepare for deployment but without their Leo Is as they were to be issued with German Leo IIs that would meet them there. He said it was on and off a couple of times before going nowhere. I mentioned this story on another site some time ago and got slapped down by an ex RAOC storeman who called BS based on it being logistically and administratively impossible to pull off with the ADF systems of the time and also be cause he didn't know about it so it couldn't have been true.

The thought of a 1 Bde battle group or even a full brigade using cascaded German equipment is quite entertaining and I would be interested to know if it was ever seriously considered. With the number of former anti Vietnam War protesters in the Labor left at the time I imagine it would never have go through parliament even if proposed by NATO / Germany. Remembering Germany did transfer Patriots and other gear to Israel as ell as sending units to Turkey to bolster their defences
 
Top